I'm certain that most of the gauntlet could easily stomp Luke in a fight, but I just can't see the many of the punches shown insta-killing him on impact. For instance, it seems to me that Luke would survive that Faora blow, only to be casually stomped like a bug before getting back up, and with the 1st Hulk punch, I can see him surviving the initial blow 6/10 times, albeit with his ribs completely shattered, and dying on impact when he hits the ground miles away. But that's just me. The brofist definitely crushes him like an aluminum can though.

@mk39: There's absolutely no way you can quantify how much force she put into that hit. All we know is that it was enough to daze Clark, which is more than enough to say Luke won't survive it. Nothing Luke's tanked is comparable to that.

He almost died from 2 specially created armor piercing exploding bullets to the gut but it took 2 of them and he still lasted a day+and was able to fight while having the shrapnel inside him. He also then tanked being boiled alive twice while trying to get his invulnerability down so they could actually operate on him to remove said shrapnel all without anesthesia. he was then punched and kicked repeatedly in his healing stomach by Cottonmouth whose suit was absorbing kinetic energy and making him super-strong.

These blows in the OP are to the stomach which he has proved can take a great deal of punishment without him being killed.

@lord_adamantium: No, that shotgun did almost kill him; Jessica had to drag him off to Claire for help... The force of the blast almost did him in and an exploding car will do the same if not worse meaning he stops at 5.

@mk39: There's absolutely no way you can quantify how much force she put into that hit. All we know is that it was enough to daze Clark, which is more than enough to say Luke won't survive it. Nothing Luke's tanked is comparable to that.

Yeah there is. We can estimate how much Clark weighs, and we know how far that hit sent him. Cage is pretty similar to Clark in terms of weight, and he's been sent further by Diamondback's hits before. It's not that complicated.

@mk39: There's absolutely no way you can quantify how much force she put into that hit. All we know is that it was enough to daze Clark, which is more than enough to say Luke won't survive it. Nothing Luke's tanked is comparable to that.

Yeah there is. We can estimate how much Clark weighs, and we know how far that hit sent him. Cage is pretty similar to Clark in terms of weight, and he's been sent further by Diamondback's hits before. It's not that complicated.

You also forgot to account for Superman's durability, which is what Juiceboks is saying. The fact that Faora's punch put Clark into the ground like that is enough to kill Luke. Kick-Ass can't budge Superman in the slightest, regardless of Superman's weight, but Faora could because Faora is strong enough

@mk39: There's absolutely no way you can quantify how much force she put into that hit. All we know is that it was enough to daze Clark, which is more than enough to say Luke won't survive it. Nothing Luke's tanked is comparable to that.

Yeah there is. We can estimate how much Clark weighs, and we know how far that hit sent him. Cage is pretty similar to Clark in terms of weight, and he's been sent further by Diamondback's hits before. It's not that complicated.

You're missing quite a things here.

1. The formula to calculate Force is F=Mass x Acceleration. To calculate Clark's mass we would need to know the volume of his body which we can estimate, and the density of his body which we have absolutely no idea of. This is a guy that can tank a flaming freight train thrown at him from a mile away and get chin checked by a helicopter minigun without a scratch. All we can tell about his density that's relevant here is that it is considerably above that of Luke Cage.

2. We have no way of knowing how fast Faora sent him careening through the restaurant. Not only that, but we'd have to take into consideration the fact that he skid across the floor instead of traveling in a straight line. That involves calculating the amount of friction an IHOP floor would act upon Clark, and then we'd have to consider the force necessary to move the debris upon his impact with it.

And if we REALLY want to be accurate, we'd have take into consideration Faora's point of impact which was on the side of his face where his center of gravity and majority of his weight distribution obviously is not.

3. We don't know the resisting force Clark was exerting when she punched him. This is probably the most important aspect you're failing to acknowledge. The reason why characters like Hulk and Thor don't get sent to the other side of the world everytime they punch each other is that they often brace for impact so their half a ton bodies don't get ragdolled. Luke does this in his show whenever people try to punch him. He really shouldn't weigh much more than a guy his size but because of the density of his skin and his tendency to brace for impact, when guys punch him instead of him moving back this happens...

..if weight was the only determining factor in this equation then Luke would've reeled back at least somewhat. Weight only comes into account when you pick up and throw something, because the only force resisting the object at that point is gravity. Faora punched Clark and only sent him a few meters away, but picked him up and tossed him to another block a few seconds later..

So again, there's no way we can calculate the force Faora exerted on Clark and compare that what Luke has tanked. All we can do is look at the fact that it dazed Clark, and realize that that's more than enough to say that Luke will not survive it due to the massive gap in durability between the two.

@juiceboks: @reaverlation:Superhumanly durable characters inexplicably defying the law of conservation of momentum is a pretty common trope in fiction, and in Superman's case there's even a possible in-universe explanation (the same force he uses to fly could be used to "anchor" himself in place) but not only is it both irrational and impractical to try and apply that to every time he's hit, but you're also going with the most complicated interpretation of a certain scene, to the point where nobody can make an intelligent argument one way or another. You're saying that we can't quantify the hit, but saying it's strong enough to do a certain thing (kill Luke Cage) is an attempt at quantifying it, or at least putting it within a range of certain quantities.

Saying it dazed Superman isn't enough either. For one, can you quantify the difference between a hit that dazes someone and a hit that kills them? Can you do it with superhumans like Superman or Luke Cage who have both been "dazed" by things that don't come close to killing them? "Daze" is such a vague word with so much wiggle room, that it can be twisted to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. That very same logic can be abused pretty easily too. If a human slaps Superman, and Superman winces, you could say, "Superman's durability>>>>>>>>>Luke Cage durability, so if Superman even felt that, that slap will kill Luke Cage easily."

:Superhumanly durable characters inexplicably defying the law of conservation of momentum is a pretty common trope in fiction

I literally just explained why it happens in a fairly basic rundown.

and in Superman's case there's even a possible in-universe explanation (the same force he uses to fly could be used to "anchor" himself in place

Nice theory, but it doesn't apply here or to any other character with his powerset or even strength level.

but not only is it both irrational and impractical to try and apply that to every time he's hit

It's neither of those things simply because you say so.

but you're also going with the most complicated interpretation of a certain scene

It may be complicated to someone that can't grasp remedial physics..but that doesn't invalidate the explanation one bit.

to the point where nobody can make an intelligent argument one way or another

You tried to calculate the force of a punch with no knowledge of several vital variables and now you're complaining that you can't make an intelligent argument. Ignoring whatever standards you use to judge an argument's intelligence, just because you can't come up with a reasonable counter to my assessment doesn't that there isn't one to be made.

You're saying that we can't quantify the hit

Not the way you're suggesting.

but saying it's strong enough to do a certain thing (kill Luke Cage) is an attempt at quantifying it, or at least putting it within a range of certain quantities

Actually I'm saying that because Faora's punch is well above anything Luke withstood(including the RPG that knocked him out cold), there's no reason to believe that he can withstand it.

Saying it dazed Superman isn't enough either. For one, can you quantify the difference between a hit that dazes someone and a hit that kills them?

Yes, you can actually. But that's not possible or necessary here. The amount of force Clark has withstood in Man of Steel alone (everything from falling 10's of thousands of feet through a mountainside to being sent through multiple skyscrapers by Zod) is considerably above that of anything Luke withstood. What Clark can tank without batting an eye should be more than enough to kill Luke, because Luke has no feats to suggest he'd even survive something like this.

And Clark walked out of it like nothing happened.

Can you do it with superhumans like Superman or Luke Cage who have both been "dazed" by things that don't come close to killing them?

I don't need to. Anything that can generate enough force to rattle Clark is more force than Luke can survive.

"Daze" is such a vague word with so much wiggle room, that it can be twisted to mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.

Daze only means one thing in this context, the twisting comes when others misinterpret scenes that do or don't follow the definition.

If a human slaps Superman, and Superman winces, you could say, "Superman's durability>>>>>>>>>Luke Cage durability, so if Superman even felt that, that slap will kill Luke Cage easily."

Ignoring the fact that Clark would never wince in pain if a regular human being slapped him, there's nothing wrong with this logic. The same applies to Luke getting dazed by Diamondback's punches, which would kill a regular person. We didn't need to see him kill a man to say that, based on all of what Luke has tanked it would only make sense.

@lord_adamantium: No, that shotgun did almost kill him; Jessica had to drag him off to Claire for help... The force of the blast almost did him in and an exploding car will do the same if not worse meaning he stops at 5.

@lord_adamantium: the shot gun did almost kill him because of a brain bleed and he's highly susceptible to blunt force trauma he's organs arent unbreakable he's insides turn to mush at 5.....

Fair enough. I didn't watch the JJ series I only saw the fight. Apparently Luke got a major durability upgrade in his series.

But these attacks in the OP are to the stomach and are one-shot-death required. Luke has survived a great deal of damage to his stomach: two armor piercing exploding rounds (Judas Bullets) to the gut that exploded inside of him and he still survived and fought for 24 hours+ and fought a tech amped Cottonmouth after the shrapnel was removed (without anesthetics) and was hit repeatedly in the stomach. He will definitely survive 5 and 6.

Your explanation acknowledges the trope. It doesn't actually justify it. Logically, super-strong characters that aren't abnormally heavy should send each other flying with every serious blow, but we as the audience accept that "doesn't budge" is cinematic language for "unharmed" even if the two shouldn't be interchangeable concepts. I'll say that Man of Steel is generally better about this sort of thing than most superhero movies however.

Nice theory, but it doesn't apply here or to any other character with his powerset or even strength level.

It's the best I can come up with. Do you have a better explanation? (Not sarcasm by the way. If you have one I'd genuinely like to hear it)

It's neither of those things simply because you say so

It's irrational because Superman's ability to cancel out momentum is neither entirely consistent nor explained in-universe. It's impractical because this isn't anywhere near a precise science. I mean...where would you even start? Are you saying Superman's ability to resist an object's momentum should inform our calculations, or that we shouldn't even make calculations?

It may be complicated to someone that can't grasp remedial physics..but that doesn't invalidate the explanation one bit.

But we're not discussing remedial physics. We're discussing physics that don't even exist. There isn't a thing in the real world that completely ignores the laws of momentum the way Superman does. I'm not going with the easy explanation. I'm going with the only one we can make semi-precise statements about.

You tried to calculate the force of a punch

I didn't actually. I just pointed out that there's a difference between calculating the force of a punch and the strength of the person delivering it.

with no knowledge of several vital variables

Some of the "vital" variables you brought up don't actually factor in that much. Superman's density for example, doesn't seem to make him any heavier, so it wouldn't affect his ability to resist outside forces acting on him. And, the speed at which he traveled through the restaurant isn't an independent variable of the others (object weight, distance traveled, outside forces like friction etc.)

(next three quotes)

So what are the upper and lower limits of "daze?" When does it stop being "dazed" and start being "mildly irritated" or "in severe pain?" You don't think the visual aspects of the scene are enough to quantify the force of the hit, which is fine, but you trust the even less quantifiable evidence of facial expressions. If the disparity between a hit that dazes, a hit that injures, and a hit that kills is completely different for characters with inhuman anatomies (and in the case of the two characters in question...it clearly is) then what quantifiable statement can we make about a hit that "dazed" Superman?

Daze only means one thing in this context, the twisting comes when others misinterpret scenes that do or don't follow the definition.

I'm saying the term has a pretty wide breadth of acceptable definitions. "Surprised" and "hit so hard he was seeing double" for example, would both be appropriate uses of the term.

Ignoring the fact that Clark would never wince in pain if a regular human being slapped him, there's nothing wrong with this logic.

...really? I guess this is the point of contention then. I'd just assume Superman's pain nerves work like normal, or something like that.

The same applies to Luke getting dazed by Diamondback's punches, which would kill a regular person. We didn't need to see him kill a man to say that, based on all of what Luke has tanked it would only make sense.

We know Diamondback's punches can kill a human because they can punch through walls and send Luke Cage flying through the air and into van doors, not because they daze him.